Anyone that harps on about the Wii U being underpowered is totally qualifying technology the wrong way. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and at the end of the day the thought should occur to everyone that simply aiming for photorealism does not beauty make. Its predominantly the reason why actors are paid for their likenesses on that graphical medium. The precident and where they draw the line, is in that too close to home photorealistic approach; and that term photorealistic in gaming couldn't be further from the truth. Its still little more than overt illustration and charictature. A pitfall the industry really shoulda been intelligent enough to avoid taking liberties upon licensing with but then Sony do, do that and many musicians and actors have commented quite strongly on the matter.

Technology in gaming has always been about facility and ingenuity. If you're fine with simply being profferred the next GPU or CPU then good luck to you, but I'm going to inform you that such as this is not evolutionary much less being revolutionary. Motion controls were instantly intuitive and novel, a revolution andergonomic evolution. The GP is all facility and fundamentally revolutionary. You can say its not for you but to call it a gimmick isalteriorly motivated and about as technically neanderthal as it gets.

Technical design these days is all about reduction, a word in engineering that has a vastly different meaning than the laymans word implies. It means making things simpler and more automated. In a closed box gaming aparatus this is much more important than raw power on open platforms like PC. The more open and complicated a platform is the more detrimental performance results. So what reduction aims to achieve in Wii U is the same performance with far less resourcing. This is why the 25% better bobcat, AMD jaguar cores are using twice the resource that IBM PPC facilitates with little under a single core overhead; the further indepth technical suppository I've provided in the hardware & graphics thread, if you can find it.

But that's their whole point in evolution, adding to gaming through these gimmicks rather than hang on to one. The fact that Nintendo tried something different with WiiU is evidence that Nintendo try to do something new every console rather than stay the same as Sony for example has. The closest to a non evolving gimmick would be the 3D in 3DS. It didn't change the game so to speak and as I can testify isn't what interested me in my purchase.

Click to expand...

What you're talking about isn't evolution. Evolution would be the standard PlayStation to the DualAnalog to the DualShock to the Sixaxis to the DualShock 4. That is steady, progressive change. It's not a complete redesign or reimagining, but it is Evolution. Nintendo (and I love then for this) starts from scratch with each new platform. They don't evolve the tech or innovations that they used the time before. And it's become more extreme since the Wii, which is why the hardware tends to "suffer" in favor of a highly focused "gimmick".

ninjadynamo said:

No but I'm happy with the level of enhancement that comes from WiiU. Like I said before, offer me a 6 instead of 7 or even 8 from 5 and I'm just as happy. For example if PS2 Gamecube Xbox were that 5, Wii was a 6 where PS360 were a 7. Sure that 7 garnered hype and was more popular, but it didn't help those companies much did it? It only made them want a 9.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. On a number scale, the PS2/GCN/Xbox were at about a 1/2, with the Wii being a 3 and the PS3/360 being a 6/7. And it did help them, big time. Yeah, the generation as a whole was a money pit, but not due to them striving for that 6/7. But that 6/7 helped them to regain ground by prolonging the life of their platforms. And of course consumers will eventually demand a 9 almost a decade later. That's like ridiculing someone for wanting to update their 1st generation iPhone to an iPhone 5 (not even 5S)--I mean the 1st gen iPhone makes calls, sends texts, has a web browser, plays games, had a touchscreen and roughly the same form factor, but......yeah.

I like your point but graphics and power have been a measuring stick for consoles since I owned an NES as a kid. The most powerful console doesn't always win, but it's the easiest way for people to justify buying a new console.

Wii U is only getting games optimized for PowerPC, because all the 7th gen games were already made for PowerPC. They ported PowerPC games to ×86. ACIV, CoD, 2K 2014, etc. are proof of that, because they didn't build those games from scratch for Xbox One and PS4. They used the resources they already made from Xbox 360 and PS3. Now they have to figure out how to port to PowerPC at a higher spec.

Click to expand...

So why didn't the 2012/13 Wii U games that were developed for PPC consoles perform better? In fact, why are games built for PPC architecture running better and looking better on supposedly foreign x86 platforms?

Click to expand...

You said there were 3 PPC systems. There were actually 4, but whatever...

We've already been over this. They ported to Wii U, but didn't take advantage of hardware, because otherwise they wouldn't have ported at all and just continued making improvements on PPC, then they would have had to port for 2 consoles, instead of 1. Unless they were already using ×86, they had to port to Xbox One or PS4, which can essentially accept the same build that 3rd parties are putting out.

If they would have failed at porting a Wii U PPC game to ×86, Xbox One and PS4 wouldn't have gotten anything. So they ported to ×86 first, then made made improvements.

Just imagine an inchworm moving. It pulls its behind closer, then crawls forward. They moved Xbox One and PS4 foward, but now they need to pull Wii U closer if they plan on supporting Nintendo at all.

It's confusing. ['b]There are reasons why Wii U isn't getting 8th gen games, but it's not because of specs or sales. Especially sales,[/b] because otherwise 3rd parties wouldn't have announced games for consoles that currently had no sales(Xbox One, PS4).

It was just a matter of priority that wasn't really in anyone's control.

these guys don´t know how hard it is to make a game and how devs suffer under all those pushed artificial constrains the games industry is bound to. also they don´t care , but yeah let the industry just let it reset itself , a lot of devs would be better of with a normal job but a happy life instead.

This topic post is about as useful as a book advocating the construction of trans-oceanic rigid airships.

You can make the best, most well thought out argument ever that rigid airships are a great aviation technology, but if every aircraft manufacturer and airport in the world has decided that airplanes are the way to go, and have already dismantled all their airship hangers and airship assembly lines and arent interested in slowing themselves down for the sake of what may theoretically might not be that bad a technology if they gave it a chance, because they have pooled all their resources into airplanes and are finding great success with them.

So basically, the fact that Wii U on its own is a perfectly capable platform doesn't excuse the fact that it DOESN'T exist in a vacuum, and if Nintendo failed to put out a system with the horsepower, and far more importantly, the architecture, that major third parties are eager to work with, then they created a flawed platform.

This topic post is about as useful as a book advocating the construction of trans-oceanic rigid airships.

You can make the best, most well thought out argument ever that rigid airships are a great aviation technology, but if every aircraft manufacturer and airport in the world has decided that airplanes are the way to go, and have already dismantled all their airship hangers and airship assembly lines and arent interested in slowing themselves down for the sake of what may theoretically might not be that bad a technology if they gave it a chance, because they have pooled all their resources into airplanes and are finding great success with them.

So basically, the fact that Wii U on its own is a perfectly capable platform doesn't excuse the fact that it DOESN'T exist in a vacuum, and if Nintendo failed to put out a system with the horsepower, and far more importantly, the architecture, that major third parties are eager to work with, then they created a flawed platform.

Click to expand...

And this is what really matters at the end of the day.

Nintendo needs to put out a console that's in line with what 3rd parties are looking for. The Xbone and PS4 meet these expectations because they have an emphasis of online capabilities, met consumers expectations in the graphics department, and allow for devs to easily port games over to PC and vice versa. This isnt what Nintendo did. They just did what they wanted and assumed everyone would get in line like they did with the Wii. That didn't happen and now they're in a terrible position.

It can't be Wii phenomenon or bust.

Trying to paint some picture of Nintendo being some white knight and savior of the industry is ridiculous right now. As a matter of fact they're hurting the gaming industry. There will probably be 80 million or so less consoles sold on the market because of the Wii U and now MS and Sony have to make that up.

Get outta here with these spins bro. Nobody but ppl that continuously make excuses for Nintendo is buying this.

This topic post is about as useful as a book advocating the construction of trans-oceanic rigid airships.

You can make the best, most well thought out argument ever that rigid airships are a great aviation technology, but if every aircraft manufacturer and airport in the world has decided that airplanes are the way to go, and have already dismantled all their airship hangers and airship assembly lines and arent interested in slowing themselves down for the sake of what may theoretically might not be that bad a technology if they gave it a chance, because they have pooled all their resources into airplanes and are finding great success with them.

So basically, the fact that Wii U on its own is a perfectly capable platform doesn't excuse the fact that it DOESN'T exist in a vacuum, and if Nintendo failed to put out a system with the horsepower, and far more importantly, the architecture, that major third parties are eager to work with, then they created a flawed platform.

Click to expand...

And this is what really matters at the end of the day.

Nintendo needs to put out a console that's in line with what 3rd parties are looking for. The Xbone and PS4 meet these expectations because they have an emphasis of online capabilities, met consumers expectations in the graphics department, and allowed for devs to easily port games over to PC and vise versa. This isnt what Nintendo did. They just did what they wanted and assumed everyone would get in line like they did with the Wii. That didn't happen and now they;re in a terrible position.

It can't be Wii phenomenon or busy.

Trying to paint some picture of Nintendo being some white knight and savior of the industry is ridiculous right now. As a matter of fact they're hurting the gaming industry. There will probably be 80 million or so less consoles sold on the market because of the Wii U and now MS and Sony have to make that up.

Get outta here with these spins bro. Nobody but ppl that continuously make excuses for Nintendo is buying this.

Click to expand...

The thing is, if Nintendo wanted to make a consciously low output, low power consumption, low cost platform to succeed the Wii strategy, I could NEVER in a million years fault them for building Wii U with the specs it shipped with.

But Nintendo said they were going after the hardcore gamer with this machine, with types of Games Nintendo systems since the 5th generation haven't been particulary strong with, and the developers and players, of those types of games tend to gravitate towards higher performance hardware.

For those of you who think it won't work, why? Are you going to quit gaming if the power envelope stops being pushed? Are you going to quit gaming because GTA VI doesn't look better than GTA V? Are you going to blow off the console manufactures because the specs of the newer consoles are half of what you expected in power (and the high possibility of price)? Seriously would it be that jagged of a pill to swallow if WiiU was the PS4 of this generation regarding power and specs?

Click to expand...

Yeah, kinda. I mean, I actually would start to lose interest in gaming if they didn't see noticeable leaps in technology from generation to generation--or on the PC side, every few years. Sure, I had fun with my Wii console, even though it didn't take that leap into 7th gen graphics. But that was because of nearly 20 years of Nintendo love. And though I loved the Wii, it was also the breaking point that finally lead me to buying and sticking with another non-Nintendo platform.

Personally, I love having variety, and right now there is a ton of it. People just tend to heavily focus on what the major development studios are doing and how they run business. Why? Because all of that money that you're complaining about them spending is what makes their games so desirable. Those franchises weren't built on the backs of games that played it safe and offered a watered down experience. No, they pushed the limits and people took notice. Gaming is, and always has been, a visual medium, and people have always cared about how games are presented. Because, believe it or not, most people's interest in a game is built on presentation before they even get their hands on it.

Click to expand...

But if there's no profit in such endeavors how is that good for the industry as a whole? So we can get what we think we want because of what we're alluded to believe? That being that high power is a necessity to that enjoyment. What will happen when the day comes when we get that final high powered impressive title and soon after that developer closes its doors because it couldn't keep the power running to make part 2?

Honestly its a business strategy that's been biting the industry in the ass since the days of "Blast Processing". It was a piss poor sales pitch then and it still is now. Especially nowadays when the industry has to back up what they say because of a more educated market. The industry molded us into power hungry gamers, why? Because its what they as manufacturers and developers control. You want the best and we got the best. Competition only offers 3? well we offer you 5. You deserve 6 but we'll give you 7 so you stick with us. Unfortunately they've bitten off more than they can chew as the profits show.

All I'm saying is if the industry offered 6 instead of 7 it wouldn't be hurting as much as it is and the gaming community wouldn't be none the wiser because were still getting something better than 5.

Click to expand...

It really isn't the consumer's problem whether or not a studio has the budget to make these big name types of games. In the end, consumers are more attracted to new technology, and want to be "wow"ed by the types of experience that technology can offer. They also appreciate games that show a lot of effort being put into them, which, by this point, is usually indicated by the high-quality graphics and little details that go into making the scenery of a game. If gamers see an AAA title with 5th gen graphics, they're going to start complaining, accusing the developer of being lazy and being cheap by not giving them these HD graphics. The problem here is that game graphics are advancing way too fast for technology to keep up and make these graphics more affordable and profitable. I'd be fine if game devs scale back on the graphics in the meantime, but if they see that they can offer higher quality graphics while still remaining affordable and being able to push a nice profit out, then by all means, they should.

@ninjadynamo "You just don't get it? This isn't about Nintendo, its about an industry destroying itself to meet the demands of gamers (like you apparently) who have been coaxed into believing that more is better, thus give me more. An industry that ironically did this to themselves by adapting this destructive practice. Didn't read my responses to you did you?"

It's not a matter of believing that "more" is better. Its a matter of believing that a machine properly designed for its stated intended task is better.

For instance,

You can choose to build a railroad whose tracks are only one feet apart (a standard used for niche industrial and agricultural applications), but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world's railroads are somehow mistaken for going with a STANDARD whose specifications for speed and passenger capacity mandates that the tracks be five feet apart.

If Nintendo wanted to build an express passenger train, they should have built a railway capable of competing for express passenger traffic.

Instead, they didn't adhere to the standard and decided to do it their own way, and built a perfectly functional railroad, but that's not optimized for what they stated they wanted to use it for.

lots of things. i don't know what you mean by 'enlighten us'....i think your on your own team at this point. anyway I'm not going to get into it with you i can see how far that gets, just simply pointing out that the there are a lot more differences between the wii u and the other consoles than ppc and x86. you also stated that money wasn't an issue. since money can be linked to every issue the wiiu has had since launch in some form or another...i would say it is an issue.

@mykdee
I just want to make it clear that I realize there are other factors at play here, but the architecture differences is definitely the top one. People like to blame the GamePad, but Vita and Smartglass exist. Other consoles cost more, so every bit of criticism that Wii U has faced, is relevant to the other consoles as well.

If $300 is too much, then $400 or $500 is definitely too much. From an unbiased point of view, that's just how things are, which is also why I argree that Nintendo needs to make the Wii U look more valuable than that.

A mid level approach is just unrealistic in reality. Nintendo got away with it with the Wii, but look at how the WiiU got hit, it was always meant for it to be successful in the small term, I would of been surprised if it went on consistently this entire gen which isn't going to happen now.

This is not about graphics nor gameplay, its about what the consumer will be getting as a whole. The WiiU has some interesting things, but the PS4 also has interesting things, is more powerful, at about $100 more. Nintendo with this mid level approach did not work cause it is charging too much for old tech, that is something to really focus on. People who say that the PS3/360 is still good to continue developing either got their system late into the cycle or are just living in the past not understanding that tech continues to progress. Now its not wrong to play old games at all, but people move on.

New tech is always better, besides. Software is suppose to make up for the loss in hardware sales.

So it's seems some of you are so attracted to the biggest leap without looking at my point that with that leap comes a hefty price on the developers and manufacturers. You all seem to not understand that when desiring these big leaps your actually part of the problem the industry is facing. That being these companies not being able to meet such demands without taking heavy losses. Losses that are ruining this industry.

Sure you get what you want, but is it worth the cost to these companies? What I'm implying is a mid level approach to help balance the industry. At the rate it's going the industry will be bankrupt before we even see a 9th generation. From what many of you are saying I see why a mid level approach will never be tried. So in reality you'll keep asking for more, the companies will still eat losses and eventually there won't be anything left for next generation.

What I'm trying to say is think about what you're asking or what you want and decide if it's really that healthy for the industry. From what a few have said, seems like most of you don't care as long as you get what you want.

I'd appreciate Nintendo's sacrifice of power in favor of other innovations a whole lot more if they were actually utilized thoroughly by NINTENDO and the majority of the core game developer community. For what the Gamepad is being used for, Nintendo could have kept that **** in the closet, modified Mote & Chuk to be as functional as a PS or XB controller PLUS its Point & Motion advantage, and packed in a lot more processing muscle.

Development Costs on much more powerful systems seems to be FAR less of a concern to the majority of publishers than taking time to build around Nintendo's innovations for a virtually non-existent audience. Heck, most Tropical Freeze players don't give a flying hoot that the Pad was not utilized for more than off-tv play.

Evolution would be the standard PlayStation to the DualAnalog to the DualShock to the Sixaxis to the DualShock 4. That is steady, progressive change.

Click to expand...

No thats called iteration only in biology does iteration lend itself to evolution. Evolution in technical terms is totally without iteration, because unlike biology you're not waiting thousands of years for difference to occur; its immediate. Theres no room for interpretation here, evolution in technology is resultant difference not gradual change. The PS controller is fundamentally the same as it ever was with very little to no variation. This is why Wiimotes and Gamepads are cited as evolutionary. In pure technical terms the DS4 is little more than gimmickry as is Vita to PS4 tacked on solution to 'me too' gamepad wannabe's. You're wrong.

Evolution would be the standard PlayStation to the DualAnalog to the DualShock to the Sixaxis to the DualShock 4. That is steady, progressive change.

Click to expand...

No thats called iteration only in biology does iteration lend itself to evolution. Evolution in technical terms is totally without iteration, because unlike biology you're not waiting thousands of years for difference to occur; its immediate. Theres no room for interpretation here, evolution in technology is resultant difference not gradual change. The PS controller is fundamentally the same as it ever was with very little to no variation. This is why Wiimotes and Gamepads are cited as evolutionary. In pure technical terms the DS4 is little more than gimmickry as is Vita to PS4 tacked on solution to 'me too' gamepad wannabe's. You're wrong.

Click to expand...

Sure, you could call it iteration, but I would actually think that that term would better describe Nintendo's controllers. The PlayStation controller has followed a steady evolutionary progression that is subtle in the ways that evolution actually works. Sony keeps what works and ditches what doesn't while still keeping things familiar. Nintendo started out that way from the NES to the SNES, but after that they had the three pronged N64 controller, to the GameCube controller, to the Wii Remote, to the GamePad. How is that any kind of understandable evolution? That would be like, in biological evolution, going from a donkey, to a turtle, to a goat. Where is the evolution?

I don't think the problem are the console specs but the way that AAA games are developed. If 50% of your budget is taken by mo-cap artists and Hollywood talent than there's something really wrong with that development model. How much satisfaction do you get from cut scenes and face animations compared to the actual gameplay mechanics? It is the current development model that is causing companies to fail rather than console specs.

If there is a relation to high development costs and raw console power, that is that less powerful hardware puts more technical restraints to a developer's vision. This in turns makes game development more challenging and thus more expensive.

To tie it all back to the original post, Nintendo is smart to not spend their development budgets on mo-caps, Hollywood artists, and maximized production values, however they are shortsighted for making a severely underpowered console compared to competition since that brings additional development costs for reasons discussed above.

Evolution would be the standard PlayStation to the DualAnalog to the DualShock to the Sixaxis to the DualShock 4. That is steady, progressive change.

Click to expand...

No thats called iteration only in biology does iteration lend itself to evolution. Evolution in technical terms is totally without iteration, because unlike biology you're not waiting thousands of years for difference to occur; its immediate. Theres no room for interpretation here, evolution in technology is resultant difference not gradual change. The PS controller is fundamentally the same as it ever was with very little to no variation. This is why Wiimotes and Gamepads are cited as evolutionary. In pure technical terms the DS4 is little more than gimmickry as is Vita to PS4 tacked on solution to 'me too' gamepad wannabe's. You're wrong.

Click to expand...

Sure, you could call it iteration, but I would actually think that that term would better describe Nintendo's controllers. The PlayStation controller has followed a steady evolutionary progression that is subtle in the ways that evolution actually works. Sony keeps what works and ditches what doesn't while still keeping things familiar. Nintendo started out that way from the NES to the SNES, but after that they had the three pronged N64 controller, to the GameCube controller, to the Wii Remote, to the GamePad. How is that any kind of understandable evolution? That would be like, in biological evolution, going from a donkey, to a turtle, to a goat. Where is the evolution?

Click to expand...

Umm how can I put this nicely... you don't get to think anything, its a standard of technical understandng and terminology; thus I said there is no interpretation. As for everything else you've taken the time to type, once again you're explicitly confusing biological evolution with technical term equivalent.

Be stubborn all you like but you're fundamentally backwards. That Nintendo controllers have each fundamentally changed, they're physically evolved along a component and integrated pathology towards a next step and/or technical leap. Its what technical professionals mean when they say Nintendo have grown their hardware.

Just, look its ok you don't do this for a living and haven't put yourself through 4-5yrs of higher education and peer/public scrutiny, I guess thats all there is to it. Through in the many conversations that occur here and elsewhere regarding Nintendo hardware, by those that profess no real technical knowledge, yet display an intuitive understanding of this end result. You should give them more consideration because they are getting it and you are fighting it.

Iteration is simply step implimentation. Evolution in technical design is taking what you've learnt and fundamentally taking that to a next level. What you're claiming with PS-DS controlers is that one day they'll have evolved technically in a million years, utterly preposturous given the premise and scope of technology. Thats all I'm gonna say on the matter.

No thats called iteration only in biology does iteration lend itself to evolution. Evolution in technical terms is totally without iteration, because unlike biology you're not waiting thousands of years for difference to occur; its immediate. Theres no room for interpretation here, evolution in technology is resultant difference not gradual change. The PS controller is fundamentally the same as it ever was with very little to no variation. This is why Wiimotes and Gamepads are cited as evolutionary. In pure technical terms the DS4 is little more than gimmickry as is Vita to PS4 tacked on solution to 'me too' gamepad wannabe's. You're wrong.

Click to expand...

Sure, you could call it iteration, but I would actually think that that term would better describe Nintendo's controllers. The PlayStation controller has followed a steady evolutionary progression that is subtle in the ways that evolution actually works. Sony keeps what works and ditches what doesn't while still keeping things familiar. Nintendo started out that way from the NES to the SNES, but after that they had the three pronged N64 controller, to the GameCube controller, to the Wii Remote, to the GamePad. How is that any kind of understandable evolution? That would be like, in biological evolution, going from a donkey, to a turtle, to a goat. Where is the evolution?

Click to expand...

Umm how can I put this nicely... you don't get to think anything, its a standard of technical understandng and terminology; thus I said there is no interpretation. As for everything else you've taken the time to type, once again you're explicitly confusing biological evolution with technical term equivalent.

Be stubborn all you like but you're fundamentally backwards. That Nintendo controllers have each fundamentally changed, they're physically evolved along a component and integrated pathology towards a next step and/or technical leap. Its what technical professionals mean when they say Nintendo have grown their hardware.

Just, look its ok you don't do this for a living and haven't put yourself through 4-5yrs of higher education and peer/public scrutiny, I guess thats all there is to it. Through in the many conversations that occur here and elsewhere regarding Nintendo hardware, by those that profess no real technical knowledge, yet display an intuitive understanding of this end result. You should give them more consideration because they are getting it and you are fighting it.

Iteration is simply step implimentation. Evolution in technical design is taking what you've learnt and fundamentally taking that to a next level. What you're claiming with PS-DS controlers is that one day they'll have evolved technically in a million years, utterly preposturous given the premise and scope of technology. Thats all I'm gonna say on the matter.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. But how was the Wii Remote an evolution of the GameCube controller? And how was the GamePad an evolution of the Wii Remote?

This is how evolution is "defined" : the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
I wouldn't say that there is anything "gradual" about Nintendo's approach to the gaming controller. And I'm not saying this as anything against Nintendo. I actually respect that they pretty much go back to the drawing board with every new controller. There just isn't much happening in any gradual sense.

I don't think the problem are the console specs but the way that AAA games are developed. If 50% of your budget is taken by mo-cap artists and Hollywood talent than there's something really wrong with that development model. How much satisfaction do you get from cut scenes and face animations compared to the actual gameplay mechanics? It is the current development model that is causing companies to fail rather than console specs.

If there is a relation to high development costs and raw console power, that is that less powerful hardware puts more technical restraints to a developer's vision. This in turns makes game development more challenging and thus more expensive.

To tie it all back to the original post, Nintendo is smart to not spend their development budgets on mo-caps, Hollywood artists, and maximized production values, however they are shortsighted for making a severely underpowered console compared to competition since that brings additional development costs for reasons discussed above.

Click to expand...

I think this is a great point and another large piece of the puzzle as to why the industry is failing. Then again it also shines light on the fact that as this thread has grown that it seems gamers are more the problem than the developers/manufacturers themselves. Sure it kinda their fault for implementing such things and making us want them or more. But at the same time I think it's our responsibility as gamers to say, "look we think it's cool that you got Brad Pitt to voice generic FPS hero but it's not worth the price." Unfortunately it seems once Brad Pitt has voiced generic FPS hero, when part 2 comes around and he's not doing the voice over. There's a pool of gamers who will bitch and moan about it and threaten not to buy the game. Probably more than I'm thinking who actually won't buy it.

This goes back to the "insatiable gamer" comments and just how overall the demands can't be realistically met while creating a profitable outcome for these companies.

This is why I feel if the whole industry took a few steps back and implemented a form of the mid tier strategy, the industry could find a balance. It goes back to what I said in the OP about would gamers seriously quit gaming if developers/manufacturers took this stand as a whole and said, "this is what you get because this is what we can afford to make."

This crowns on the industry as well because they have this need to keep competitive so they keep pushing for more trying to get the most sales. They molded us into these demanding spoiled gamers, I guess they're reaping what the sowed.

This has gone on so long that I dont even know what the argument is anymore. The Wii U is the weakest console by a pretty good margin, if anyone is still trying to deny that, then they are hopeless. I love Wii U, but come on, X and Bayonetta 2 are showcasing the system, and they arent a generation ahead of the 360 and PS3, not even close. So what is the argument? That Wii U can run any next gen game with compromises? If so, then yea, obviously seeing as how the most of those games are also on the 360 and PS3. Those games are showcasing the sacrafices that developers would have to make to port a game to Wii U. It takes a lot of power to go from 720p 30fps to 1080p 60fps, even with the same graphical fidelity. Xbox One is trading resolution or framerate to maintain the leap in fidelity that the PS4 is able to accomplish while also increasing the resolution. As it stands right now, if the developer were to make COD Ghost for X1 run in 1080p 60fps, then it would look very similar to the 360 build. Same goes with Battlefield 4, the X1 can run it in 1080p 60fps, but its going to look just like the 360 version inorder to do it. The leap from Wii U to Xbox One is a decision, the developer can either increase the resolution, increase the framerate, or increase the graphical fidelity. Pick two and hope for the best, because picking all three is not an option, the horsepower to pull it off just isnt there with the X1, its barely there with the PS4. It doesnt matter, Wii U is getting dropped by third parties because of sales, if the titles were selling really well, the Wii U would all of a sudden become next gen to those third parties. Its all about the benjamens.

GCN and Xbox were neck and neck in performance, despite Xbox having bigger numbers. Not only that, but PS2 wasn't even part of the spec argument, at least not as vigorously as GCN and Xbox were. I don't think people are doing themselves much of a favor by including a supposedly underpowered console as part of the argument, yes?

I don't remember anyone being as much as an a$$face about specs in 6th gen, so WTF happened?

@mykdee
I just want to make it clear that I realize there are other factors at play here, but the architecture differences is definitely the top one. People like to blame the GamePad, but Vita and Smartglass exist. Other consoles cost more, so every bit of criticism that Wii U has faced, is relevant to the other consoles as well.

If $300 is too much, then $400 or $500 is definitely too much. From an unbiased point of view, that's just how things are, which is also why I argree that Nintendo needs to make the Wii U look more valuable than that.

Click to expand...

yes. system architecture differences are definitely at the top of the list, but not necessarily the CPU architecture.

One thing that I'd love to discuss amongst ourselves is Shin'en and their using 240 frames per second for their physics in Art of balance Wii U, and what that sort of thing can mean for the future of Wii U games.

My assumption at this point, since they only used a single CPU core for Nano Assault Neo, that they are probably have a whole core in use for the physics. Point being, that since most launch Wii U games only used a single core, even Xbox 360 ports, then moving forward, 2 cores and the GPU for graphics, the DSP for sound, and a whole CPU core for physics should make for some amazing games. While physics-wise, pretty much anything Developers can come up with should be doable.

On a side note slightly, Dat fur in Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze! The physics in use on it are a nice little surprise as well. So many individual strands. Cranky's beard as well. Again, very little anti-aliasing going on, but when the game is in motion, you really do not notice. It looks smooth.

GCN and Xbox were neck and neck in performance, despite Xbox having bigger numbers. Not only that, but PS2 wasn't even part of the spec argument, at least not as vigorously as GCN and Xbox were. I don't think people are doing themselves much of a favor by including a supposedly underpowered console as part of the argument, yes?

I don't remember anyone being as much as an a$$face about specs in 6th gen, so WTF happened?

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol. that is what i am telling you. after you argue for 2 pages over CPU architecture being the main issue for developers. whatever.

@nohumanape
Not really. I knew GCN and Xbox had better graphics than PS2, but that's not why I got a GCN. I got a GCN, because it had Smash Bros, and would have the next Zelda and Mario Kart. I didn't even know WTF PS2 was until after I got my GCN, so graphics weren't even a factor of my decision.

The specs didn't matter to me, because I played the games I enjoyed. I had an N64 with Smash Bros, then I saw the new one on GCN. Simple.

I just figured PS2 owners liked the games. Lots of my friends had PS2, because they're parents saw it as a 2-in-1 box(video games/DVD). I played PS2 all the time, but graphics weren't even really part of the discussion.

@nohumanape
Not really. I knew GCN and Xbox had better graphics than PS2, but that's not why I got a GCN. I got a GCN, because it had Smash Bros, and would have the next Zelda and Mario Kart. I didn't even know WTF PS2 was until after I got my GCN, so graphics weren't even a factor of my decision.

The specs didn't matter to me, because I played the games I enjoyed. I had an N64 with Smash Bros, then I saw the new one on GCN. Simple.

I just figured PS2 owners liked the games. Lots of my friends had PS2, because they're parents saw it as a 2-in-1 box(video games/DVD). I played PS2 all the time, but graphics weren't even really part of the discussion.

Click to expand...

Ok then, you simply weren't paying attention at that time. I mean, you didn't know what a PS2 was?

So... all physics on screen at a given time being calculated at 240 times per second in addition to near photo realistic graphics. Nice huh?

Click to expand...

i can't wait to see how Project Cars physics turn out on WiiU, sure it won't be calculated 240 times per second, but it is sure to be the most demanding graphics/physics combination on the WiiU. Unless i am underestimating the demand Shinen's 240cps physics puts on the system.

So... all physics on screen at a given time being calculated at 240 times per second in addition to near photo realistic graphics. Nice huh?

Click to expand...

i can't wait to see how Project Cars physics turn out on WiiU, sure it won't be calculated 240 times per second, but it is sure to be the most demanding graphics/physics combination on the WiiU. Unless i am underestimating the demand Shinen's 240cps physics puts on the system.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm interested as well. Project CARS is definitely on my list for this year. Those guys seem to really know what they are doing with the hardware. I just hope that the motion controls are extremely tight.

@nohumanape
Not really. I knew GCN and Xbox had better graphics than PS2, but that's not why I got a GCN. I got a GCN, because it had Smash Bros, and would have the next Zelda and Mario Kart. I didn't even know WTF PS2 was until after I got my GCN, so graphics weren't even a factor of my decision.

The specs didn't matter to me, because I played the games I enjoyed. I had an N64 with Smash Bros, then I saw the new one on GCN. Simple.

I just figured PS2 owners liked the games. Lots of my friends had PS2, because they're parents saw it as a 2-in-1 box(video games/DVD). I played PS2 all the time, but graphics weren't even really part of the discussion.

Click to expand...

Ok then, you simply weren't paying attention at that time. I mean, you didn't know what a PS2 was?

Click to expand...

I knew about the first PS, but not PS2. I knew what Nintendo was before Sega and PS, so that just stuck. I had an NES, I played SNES and Sega Genesis occasionally, then I got an N64, then my cousins showed me PS1, I knew what Dreamcast was, but then it died and I got a GCN. So by this point, all I knew about was Sega and Nintendo, basically. I played MadDash at the store, but I didn't really get what was going on and my mind was already set on Smash Bros.

I did pay attention to PS. That's all my cousins played, but I still thought N64 was better. I tried playing Gex and Driver on PS1. It played liked s***, IMO, so I stuck with Nintendo. I liked Megaman 8 on PS.

@nohumanape
Not really. I knew GCN and Xbox had better graphics than PS2, but that's not why I got a GCN. I got a GCN, because it had Smash Bros, and would have the next Zelda and Mario Kart. I didn't even know WTF PS2 was until after I got my GCN, so graphics weren't even a factor of my decision.

The specs didn't matter to me, because I played the games I enjoyed. I had an N64 with Smash Bros, then I saw the new one on GCN. Simple.

I just figured PS2 owners liked the games. Lots of my friends had PS2, because they're parents saw it as a 2-in-1 box(video games/DVD). I played PS2 all the time, but graphics weren't even really part of the discussion.

Click to expand...

Ok then, you simply weren't paying attention at that time. I mean, you didn't know what a PS2 was?

Click to expand...

I knew about the first PS, but not PS2. I knew what Nintendo was before Sega and PS, so that just stuck. I had an NES, I played SNES and Sega Genesis occasionally, then I got an N64, then my cousins showed me PS1, I knew what Dreamcast was, but then it died and I got a GCN. So by this point, all I knew about was Sega and Nintendo, basically. I played MadDash at the store, but I didn't really get what was going on and my mind was already set on Smash Bros.

I did pay attention to PS. That's all my cousins played, but I still thought N64 was better. I tried playing Gex and Driver on PS1. It played liked s***, IMO, so I stuck with Nintendo. I liked Megaman 8 on PS.

Click to expand...

My point is that you didn't seem to be paying attention. I watched the PS2 unveiling and saw all of the specs talk in magazines afterwards. It was pretty much the same around here.

@nohumanape
I only started keeping up with gaming news a year before the DS came out. Everything before that was from first hand experience or word of mouth. As for 7th gen, I just assumed Wii would be as powerful as Xbox 360. That's how much I knew.

@nohumanape
I only started keeping up with gaming news a year before the DS came out. Everything before that was from first hand experience or word of mouth. As for 7th gen, I just assumed Wii would be as powerful as Xbox 360. That's how much I knew.

Click to expand...

Then why comment about things not being like they were "back then" if you just weren't paying attention or getting involved? I swear, this is how every interaction with you has been.

@Paladinrja
Yup. There's already a market for this type of thing, but people don't even think about it. The same thing happened to the DS. Everybody criticised the second screen, and namely the hardware capability. Move forward to 3DS, and none of that stuff matters anymore. The same goes for Wii U, they just added the GamePad into the mix with Wii remotes.

We have a system that can incorporate a second screen arguably the most effectively out of any option(mainly because it's accessible), and is better than anything last gen had to offer. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

@Paladinrja
Yup. There's already a market for this type of thing, but people don't even think about it. The same thing happened to the DS. Everybody criticised the second screen, and namely the hardware capability. Move forward to 3DS, and none of that stuff matters anymore. The same goes for Wii U, they just added the GamePad into the mix with Wii remotes.

We have a system that can incorporate a second screen arguably the most effectively out of any option(mainly because it's accessible), and is better than anything last gen had to offer. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I think so as well. Its the most complete suite of input in a single device ever to grace gaming, ergonomic, non-invasive and altogether too good.

To my mind, I believe that Nintendo's next logical evolutionary step should likely be into biomechanics and specifically biometrics. Those rumoured specs of the next system give me that impression. Pressure and gesture tracked surfacing, possibly even light emission navigation of some sort as a totally new front-end gaming UI; as well as your touch'n'swipe we're all used to. Think of it as a sort of entry level holographic. New game opportunites would include shaping and modelling which could be very interesting to say the least.

@Paladinrja
Yup. There's already a market for this type of thing, but people don't even think about it. The same thing happened to the DS. Everybody criticised the second screen, and namely the hardware capability. Move forward to 3DS, and none of that stuff matters anymore. The same goes for Wii U, they just added the GamePad into the mix with Wii remotes.

We have a system that can incorporate a second screen arguably the most effectively out of any option(mainly because it's accessible), and is better than anything last gen had to offer. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I think so as well. Its the most complete suite of input in a single device ever to grace gaming, ergonomic, non-invasive and altogether too good.

To my mind, I believe that Nintendo's next logical evolutionary step should likely be into biomechanics and specifically biometrics. Those rumoured specs of the next system give me that impression. Pressure and gesture tracked surfacing, possibly even light emission navigation of some sort as a totally new front-end gaming UI; as well as your touch'n'swipe we're all used to. Think of it as a sort of entry level holographic. New game opportunites would include shaping and modelling which could be very interesting to say the least.

Click to expand...

Nintendo would never in a million years do that. Complete wishful thinking on your part--which is ok, because everyone does that around here.

@Paladinrja
Yup. There's already a market for this type of thing, but people don't even think about it. The same thing happened to the DS. Everybody criticised the second screen, and namely the hardware capability. Move forward to 3DS, and none of that stuff matters anymore. The same goes for Wii U, they just added the GamePad into the mix with Wii remotes.

We have a system that can incorporate a second screen arguably the most effectively out of any option(mainly because it's accessible), and is better than anything last gen had to offer. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I think so as well. Its the most complete suite of input in a single device ever to grace gaming, ergonomic, non-invasive and altogether too good.

To my mind, I believe that Nintendo's next logical evolutionary step should likely be into biomechanics and specifically biometrics. Those rumoured specs of the next system give me that impression. Pressure and gesture tracked surfacing, possibly even light emission navigation of some sort as a totally new front-end gaming UI; as well as your touch'n'swipe we're all used to. Think of it as a sort of entry level holographic. New game opportunites would include shaping and modelling which could be very interesting to say the least.

Click to expand...

Nintendo would never in a million years do that. Complete wishful thinking on your part--which is ok, because everyone does that around here.

Click to expand...

Ooooo did he say the big magic no-no word holographic did he? FYI I actually said it twice.

Nintendo would do that, they're already doing it. Its the next logical evolution of end-user input in any event, that began with light-touch. Theres a science behind user input you know, with its own goals, just like technological design has its own impetus towards reduction. Ergonomics is all about less resistance. The rumoured specs certainly afford the conclusion.